Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - June 2012

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DIABLO MEDIA, LLC v. H2H IINTERACTIVE, INC., ET AL.
DISTRICT OF COLORADO
1:12-CV-01246-WJM
FILED: 05/11/2012

Defendant Mirsky was a vice president of business development for Diablo.  He had signed a Non-Compete and Non-Disclosure Agreement but allegedly violated both in starting a competing enterprise.  Remember that no matter how solid your contracts are the only real assurance you have that a former employee is not going to compete against you unfairly is the potential threat of litigation.  If you are dealing with someone who has nothing to lose and does not fear the consequences of being sued you are in a potentially high-risk situation.

Diablo is an Internet marketing company that specializes in “affiliate advertising”.  The Defendants are employees who left and began a competing company doing business with affiliate marketers.  The Defendants are alleged to have repeatedly misrepresented to Diablo’s advertisers and affiliates that Diablo was on the verge of going out of business.  The Plaintiff claims this factual representation was false. 

Plaintiff alleges false advertising, trade libel, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breach of contract.  The prayer for relief requests that the Court enter a judgment against Defendants for compensatory damages for false advertising and trade libel, compensatory damages for breach of contract, and treble and exemplary damages for oppression, fraud, and malice.  Prayer for relief also requests an award of all attorneys’ fees and costs for action.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1564.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - May 2012

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


PALMETTO RV, INC. v. PALMETTO RV RENTALS, LLC, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA (CHARLESTON)
2:12-CV-00932-DCN
FILED: 4/03/2012

Defamation requires the publication of a false factual statement.  Some of these statements will be considered “opinion” and not subject to legal action for defamation.  Others have crossed the line and will certainly be considered claims of fact.  Rather than having to be concerned about whether your claims are opinion or fact, I strongly recommend you have your legal counsel review any publications that could potentially give rise to claims of defamation.

Both the Plaintiff and Defendants are in the recreational vehicle industry.  The Defendants are alleged to have published a “Craigslist” posting calling the Plaintiff “a disgrace”, “scum”, “liars”, and “cheaters”. 

Plaintiff alleges false designation and unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and defamation.  The prayer for relief requests that the Defendants be permanently enjoined and restrained from further use of the infringing mark, monetary relief in the amount of all profits received as a result of unlawful actions, punitive damages, and prejudgment interest. Prayer for relief also requests an award of all reasonable attorneys’ fees, costs, and disbursements.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1558.


SERVICE LEGENDS, INC. v. THRASHER SERVICE CORP.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
4:12-CV-00159-RP-CFB
FILED: 4/17/2012

Former employees have a long history of attacking a previous employer.  You need to be very careful when discharging an employee.  Even though you may have written contracts and “non-disparagement” guarantees, reality tells us those mean very little when a former employee feels he/she has been treated unfairly.

The Plaintiff offers service and support for heating and cooling to central Iowa residents.  The Defendant is a former employee of Thrasher who posted a negative review that allegedly contains numerous defamatory statements in which he claims that the Plaintiff is comprised of “a bunch of scammers” who are trained to rip off customers.  The Defendant is alleged to have instigated others to post defamatory comments on websites and on Google reviews.

Plaintiff alleges false advertising, false descriptions, unfair competition, and defamation. The prayer for relief requests that the Court enter judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on all counts of the Complaint, that the Defendant be enjoined from further unfair competition, false advertising, false designation of origin, false descriptions, and deceptive trade practices.  The prayer for relief also requests the award of compensatory, punitive, and treble damages, and the reimbursement of attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1559.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - April 2012

Traverse Internet Law  Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


AJA CONSULTING GROUP, LLC, ET AL. v. BABAEV, ET AL.
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK (BROOKLYN)
1:12-CV-01283-RRM-SMG
FILED: 3/15/2012

This case alleges copyright infringement, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and other causes of action arising from employees leaving and then starting a competing business. This type of situation is always high risk and it is very important that your key employees have contracts that preclude them from doing this type of thing.
Plaintiff Housing Rehabilitation, a subsidiary of AJA Consulting Group, provides consulting services in the home improvement and related financing industry. The Defendants are former employees of the Plaintiffs and are now competing. There are many causes of action brought against the Defendants and the “defamation” is buried in the actions that relate to deceptive misconduct.

Plaintiff Housing Rehabilitation alleges copyright infringement, trade dress infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, violations of the New York General Business Law, breach of fiduciary duty, and disgorgement of profits. The Plaintiffs prayer for relief requests an award of punitive damages together with statutory interest and costs, an award of disbursements and reasonable attorneys’ fees, punitive damages, and any such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1557.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - March 2012

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


DEAN ENTERPRISES, LLC, ET AL. v. TYSON
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (PHOENIX)
2:12-CV-00239-LOA
FILED: 2/03/2012

Keep in mind that “reviews” are very popular methods of marketing and are one of the few in which a business can use a competitor’s name legitimately. An honest “review” can provide great search engine optimization benefits. However, any factual mistake in the review creates both trademark infringement and defamation liability, so be very careful about using reviews in your online content.
Plaintiffs provide training and educational products in the field of real estate investing. Plaintiff Dean Enterprises, LLC operates under the trademark “Dean Graziosi”. The Defendant is a competitor using the trademark to optimize his website and to provide purported objective reviews of Plaintiff Dean Enterprises, LLC’s services, which are false in content.

Plaintiff Dean Enterprises, LLC alleges unfair competition, defamation, and trade libel. The Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief requests the entry of an award of all statutory, treble, and compensatory damages, the Defendants be permanently enjoined from the use of infringing marks and unfair competition, the payment of all costs and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1552.


COOPER B-LINE, INC. v. MARCO SPECIALTY STEEL, INC.
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS (HOUSTON)
4:12-CV-00547
FILED: 2/23/2012

It is getting easier and easier to defame another business in the online world. In this instance a trademark infringement or counterfeiting claim has morphed into a “business disparagement” claim, which is basically the same thing as a lawsuit for defamation.

The Plaintiff manufactures industrial, commercial, and utility products and sells them through a network of distributors all around the world. The Defendant, a competitor, is alleged to falsely market and advertise that it sells genuine Cooper B-Line products knowing that such a claim is false.

The Plaintiff alleges trademark infringement, false designation of origin and unfair competition, dilution, trademark counterfeiting, common law misappropriation, theft, injury to business reputation, trade name, and trademark, business disparagement, and tortious interference with prospective relations. The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests the entry of judgment for all allegations, an injunction from engaging in further infringement, the payment of damages, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees, and any further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1553.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - February 2012

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


ACCENT MEDIA, INC. v. YOUNG, ET AL.
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA (CEDAR RAPIDS)
1:12-CV-00007-LRR
FILED: 1/10/2012

The Plaintiff alleges that the defamatory comments made were in response to the legal dispute that arose between the parties. Be particularly careful not to “tell your side of the story” when a matter looks like it is becoming a legal dispute. Otherwise, you will often find a lawsuit that includes a count against you for defamation.

The Plaintiff is an audio/visual documentation and film production firm and the Defendants are a former customer of the firm. The Defendants are alleged to have made false and defamatory statements about the Plaintiff, which led to a major contract being terminated.

The Plaintiff alleges copyright infringement, interference with contractual relationships, and defamation. The Plaintiff’s prayer for relief requests judgment in an amount sufficient to compensate for its injuries, for punitive damages, and for interest and costs as allowed by law. The Plaintiff demands trial by jury. Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1547.

Defamation Lawyer: Traverse Internet Law on Defamation - January 2012

Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer

The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


LYONS, ET AL. v. GILLETTE, ET AL.
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS (BOSTON)
1:11-CV-12192-WGY
FILED: 12/12/2011

These types of business disputes are very common and you have to be careful about everything you say when a dispute arises.

The Plaintiffs claim to be the lawful owners of a registered trademark relating to veterinary sports medicine and rehabilitation. Defendants are alleged to have made false statements to the public concerning the Plaintiffs and imputed an unfitness to do their job.

The Plaintiffs allege federal trademark infringement, unfair competition, trademark dilution, copyright infringement, misappropriation of intellectual property, and emotional distress. The prayer for relief requests Defendants be permanently enjoined from continued use of the infringing marks and Plaintiffs be awarded all costs and expenses including attorneys’ fees, and such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.  Traverse Internet Law Cross Reference Number 1543.